Automated Analysis of Impact of Scheduling on Performance of Self-stabilizing Protocols

  • Saba Aflaki
  • Borzoo Bonakdarpour
  • Sébastien Tixeuil
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9212)


In a concurrent computing system, a scheduler determines at each time which computing task should execute next. Thus, a scheduler has tremendous impact on the performance of the tasks that it orchestrates. Analyzing the impact of scheduling in a distributed setting is a challenging task, as it is concerned with subtle dimensions such as geographical distance of processes and the achievable level of parallelism. In this paper, we propose an automated method based on probabilistic verification for analyzing fault recovery time in distributed self-stabilizing protocols. We exhibit the usefulness of our approach through a large set of experiments that demonstrate the impact of different types of scheduling policies on recovery time of different classes of stabilizing protocols, and the practical efficiency of classical self-stabilizing scheduler transformers.


Schedule Policy Randomization Parameter Arbitrary Graph Vertex Coloring Schedule Criterion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aflaki, S., Faghih, F., Bonakdarpour, B.: Synthesizing self-stabilizing protocols under average recovery time constraints. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) (to appear, 2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arora, A., Gouda, M.G., Herman, T.: Composite routing protocols. In: Proceedings of the Second IEEE Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing (SPDP), pp. 70–78 (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beauquier, J., Johnen, C.: Analyze of probabilistic algorithms under indeterministic scheduler. In: IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applications (ISPA), pp. 553–558 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Devismes, S., Tixeuil, S., Yamashita, M.: Weak vs. self vs. probabilistic stabilization. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pp. 681–688 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dijkstra, E.W.: Self-stabilizing systems in spite of distributed control. Communications of the ACM 17(11), 643–644 (1974)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dubois, S., Tixeuil, S.: A taxonomy of daemons in self-stabilization. CoRR, abs/1110.0334 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fallahi, N., Bonakdarpour, B.: How good is weak-stabilization? In: Higashino, T., Katayama, Y., Masuzawa, T., Potop-Butucaru, M., Yamashita, M. (eds.) SSS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8255, pp. 148–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fallahi, N., Bonakdarpour, B., Tixeuil, S.: Rigorous performance evaluation of self-stabilization using probabilistic model checking. In: Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE International Conference on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), pp. 153–162 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gouda, M.G.: The theory of weak stabilization. In: Datta, A.K., Herman, T. (eds.) WSS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2194, pp. 114–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2001) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gradinariu, M., Tixeuil, S.: Self-stabilizing vertex coloring of arbitrary graphs. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS), pp. 55–70 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gradinariu, M., Tixeuil, S.: Conflict managers for self-stabilization without fairness assumption. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pp. 46–46 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herman, T.: Probabilistic self-stabilization. Information Processing Letters 35(2), 63–67 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnen, C., Alima, L.O., Datta, A.K., Tixeuil, S.: Optimal snap-stabilizing neighborhood synchronizer in tree networks. Parallel Processing Letters 12(3–4), 327–340 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM 4.0: verification of probabilistic real-time systems. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 585–591. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simaitis, A.: Automatic Verification of Competitive Stochastic Systems. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yamauchi, Y., Tixeuil, S., Kijima, S., Yamashita, M.: Brief announcement: probabilistic stabilization under probabilistic schedulers. In: Aguilera, M.K. (ed.) DISC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7611, pp. 413–414. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Saba Aflaki
    • 1
  • Borzoo Bonakdarpour
    • 2
  • Sébastien Tixeuil
    • 3
  1. 1.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Université Pierre and Marie CurieParisFrance

Personalised recommendations